tv Forbes on FOX FOX News November 14, 2009 11:00am-11:30am EST
ngs we're worried about probably come to fruition, but a lot later than we think we are, and people are missing out so. if it's the spiders, then so be it. neil: we're done here, guys. thank you all very, very much. david asman continues now, "forbes on fox." [captioning made possible by fox news channel] david: despite what lawmakers are promising, the biggest winner in healthcare reform will not be you. nope, it's the unionses. wait till you hear what the folks at forbes uncovered in proving that is true. hi, everybody. welcome to "forbes on fox." let's go "in focus" with steve forbes, who, by the way, has a new book out called "how capitalism will save us." let's hope so. you get your copy right now at bookstores. also here, victoria barrett and mike ozanian, along with quinton hardy, elizabeth mcdonald, and mike maiello. so have beenee, did you some
digging and found the bigger winner is who? >> it's unions. actually i tried read this thing, which is more than a lot of people in washington, i would imagine. and what was really interesting to me was hospitals can get funding for nurse training programs basically so long as they are unionized. this is a nice little handout to unions, and there are lots of other things in this bill that strike me as real giveaway to unions. you know, we talked about those cadillac plans that we're going to get taxed. well, that's now up for debate, because guess what, a lot of union healthcare plans would qualify as these gold-plated or cadillac plans. add that to the fact that we're just creating another huge bureaucracy, a large part of which will probably be unionized, and i think you can easily make the case that unions are the largest winner, which is stunning. david: so unions the bigger winner than you and i? >> well, victoria, i think you have to say the right-wing paranoia for half-term alaska
governors, because you know there is no provision for how much money is involved here, and that the unions are one of four facilities to furthered nurse training. the other three being training facilities where nurses get input, state institutions, and nursing schools. so unions are one of four ways. now, i'll tell you who is going to benefit from this, it's people who don't have insurance now. none of them are in unions because that's one of the things unions provide for their people. david: certainly there will be a lot of new government workers to fill up this government bureaucracy. >> well, that's one of the intentions of this entire plan is to create an army of unionized workers in washington that will dictate healthcare for all of us, and we just saw unveiled this week, this past week, senator reid has a secret plan he's been working on where he's going to raise taxes on people earning $200,000 or more so he can lower the taxes on these cadillac plans to protect the unions.
david: $250,000 or more, by the way. steve, if, in fact, some people fear that private insurers will go bust as a result, that means that 500,000 people now working in the private sector might become government workers, and they could be unionized easily. >> but the end of the day, unions and the economy are going to lose, because it's going to destroy a lot of jobs. and when jobs are destroyed, just look at general motors. 40 years ago they had 395,000 blue-collar workers, today it's 38,000. even though they had gold-plated this, gold-plated that. so at the end of the day, unions are going lose. the only winners are going to be government bureaucrats and lawyers. they're getting a lot out of this bill. david: i don't know. there's a possibility of a lot of new union workers as a result of this bill. >> yeah, you know, there is. and also, you know, it's not right-wing paranoia. vickie's following her journalistic instincts. the problem with this bill, david, is that this is one big rat's nest of a bill. it's about as transparent as a bathtub of molasses. the dagen is that the, you
know, the politicians in congress, who are getting a lot of campaign donations from unions, could christmas tree this bill at the 11th hour, you know, say the debt of night on christmas eve. what i found, too, is $10 billion set aside potentially for unionized companies to dwhray the costs of their retiree health benefits, meaning the u.a.w., union-owned car companies. and also, i'm seeing, too, that potentially states like california could dump their older workers on to the public plan. it wouldn't stop any of these unionized companies also from dumping their union, you know, retirees onto the public plan as well. david: and the obama administration has many handouts, starting with the auto bailout. >> victoria and i decided to contact harry reid's office last week just to find out, just to make sure, and the idea of taxing cadillac union plans is still very much on the table. soon argument could be made that unions are making a huge
sacrifice here, because they got those plans -- david: then why are they so much in favor of them? why are they so much in favor of these plans if it hurts them? >> because it's actually good for everyone because it gives their members who are employed now security -- david: because they're only interested in everybody. >> it gives their members security that they can get healthcare later. but still, this should be our thanksgiving segment. david: victor i can't recollect the bottom line is i don't think the unions would be as in favor of it as they are unless it helped them, right? >> oh, certainly, and they're not in favor of the tax on the so-called -- david: not the tax, but again, other unions are very much in favor of the pelosi bill. >> oh, sure, yeah. what's interesting about the sciu, half of their membership is already in healthcare. and this bill only makes it stronger. and yeah, you look at what unions have done to other industries, and you think, gosh, we don't want to further that in the healthcare sector, where it is a matter of life and death. >> but obama doesn't care,
vickie, about that, because he's going transport all those people on to the government payroll. he's just going make federal union employees out of them. the private sector unions have been going down for years. it's the public sector where unions are stronger, and that obama wants to call. david: go ahead, quinton. >> well, by this logic, the unions are in favor tv because some good will come to them. the american medical association was in favor tv. they must think some good will come of t. aarp was in favor tv. they must think some good will come of t. the people voting for obama knowing this was going to happen or hoping it would happen, maybe some good's going to come of it! >> the vast majority of taxpayers are against these plans. that poll, too. david: by the way, the a.m.a. only represents 20% of doctors, but go ahead, e. mac. >> yeah, and try corralling, they're saying they're going pay for the bill by getting cost savings out of the doctors. yeah, how can the a.m.a. corral 183,000 doctors to deliver on those promises? never happen. they've made those promises
since the 1970's. but the issue, is david, this bill does not stop rainway healthcare costs. you know, the president says maybe it will dwhray 1.5% of healthcare costs down the road. that's nothing. how do you stop runaway healthcare costs? this bill doesn't do it. maybe, you know, tort reform, medical liability, new laws there, maybe an interstate competition for real insurance market. none of that is on the table now. david: there's nothing wrong with unions per se, but steve, we have half a million workers in the private insurance company, and if, in fact, those private insurers go bust to a government agency, they're going to become bureaucrats. >> they are. and sometimes unions are their own worst enemy. and on the government side, what's going happen when states like california have to go into receivership? what's going to happen to their contracts then? obama can rip up g.m. contracts, but he doesn't have enough money to bail out all these plans. >> i would just point out that america's health insurance plans, the big lobby group, is behind this, so the health insurers, they horse traded. they got what they wanted out of this bill.
shouldn't we -- david: i don't know if they got what they wanted, but it's true they did think they were going get something out of t. >> if they did have to give a little, they're getting some. just like the health insurers. david: but victoria, the question, is do you really think the unions would go that much in favor of something that hurts them? >> i don't think in the end this bill -- them don't see it as hurting them. certainly they've gotten a lot of deals out of it. and my question, is what about the taxpayers? it's like everyone has a lobbying group in washington except for taxpayers. david: e-mac, quickly, go ahead. >> how come no one's talking about the $10 billion that could go to unionized companies to dwhray retiree healthcare costs? that could come again in the dead of night on christmas event it's already been in one of the bills. it could come. our tax dollars help unionize retiree healthcare costs. >> and by the way, aarp gets a nice deal from this thing, and that's why they're supporting it. david: ok, the folks are not
served. others argue the suspects should never be allowed to set foot on u.s. soil, much less given the rights of an american citizen. the trials to be held just blocks from ground zero. the controversial decision raising serious questions and fierce debate. a fox news exclusive when i see you for the 1:00 p.m. hour, former attorney general michael mukasey, also the presiding judge in the 1993 world trade center bombing trial, tells us what the obama administration's decision to give those civilian trials to khalid sheik mohammed and four others means for the case and our criticism a can't-miss interview, 1:00 p.m. eastern today, only on fox. david: democrats are banking on half a trillion dollars in cost cuts to help pay for their trillion dollar healthcare reform, but history does show that when congress cuts
something, those savings don't last. and steve forbes says his tree's getting ready to repeat itself big time so. steve, isn't d.c. just playing a shell game? >> sure, it is. there are only three certain things in life -- death, taxes, and government overruns. and on this one, they're financing six years' worth of healthcare with 10 years' worth of taxes. which means, in the future, this thing is just going to explode. one example, $250 billion in fees for doctors. they took it out of the healthcare bill to pretend that it's not there, going to pass it in another bill. so those are the kinds of games they're playing. more money for less. david: and mike, here's history for you. physician fee cuts were done in 2002, but 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, they said they were going to do it, but them didn't. do you believe them now? >> i do. any powerful president can cut pretty much whatever they want, and i'll go to the cato institute, my liberal leaning friends for evidence, because i was doing research on corporate
and subsidy programs. they said under the clinton years, a lot of the corporate welfare did get cut. and then it came back under bush. why? two different presidents with different priorities t. can be done. first not, it's only because the people don't temperature done. david: it can be done, but usually not done. >> this bill has been wrongly characterized as a $1 trillion budget buster. it's actual a $2 trillion budget buster t. has been wrongly criticized by big government lovers as being something that will extend insurance to people who aren't insured. the real essence of the bill is to totally displace privately funded health insurance with cadillac government-run insurance plans. that's going to happen. it's going cost maybe more than $2 trillion. david: so neil, in so many ways, it is this shell game. >> it's a shell game, but the idea this is just going to grow and grow is nonsense. after world war, two the government's budget went down. after the reagan buildup, clinton brought it down. we got rid of the deficit. the government, despite the
common wisdom, is capable of reducing its spending at certain times. david: well, certain times doesn't amount to a lot, does it? >> over, it doesn't. over the last 100 years, the federal government has grown from 10% of the economy to 45%. in times of no, with a it's only fallen two times t. the second half of the reagan years and the second half of the clinton years thanks to the republican congress. medicaid, when it was signed -- medicare, when it was signed into law in 1965, was proposed to have a $9 billion budget in 1990. guess what the budget was, $65 billion. david: right, right. well, the fact is, even republicans -- i mean, look at the bush administration. they were spending like drunken sailors. >> mike, you're a stats guy. you should know they didn't account for inflation when they put that medicare number up, so that has no relevance. >> adjust it for inflation. adjust it for inflation, adjust it for inflation -- >> as mike says --
>> mike, are we done? >> go ahead. >> just because george bush lied, deceived, and fell short on the budget many, many times over, that doesn't mean it happens repeatedly. as you saw yesterday, next year's budgets, all the cabinet heads have been told to either keep it at budget or have a second one at a 5% cuts. that indicates a good-faith move that it could indicate some of the good things government has done before. david: go ahead, mike. >> president obama's own budget shows him spending, borrowing, borrowing more money than every president before him combined. those are obama's own numbers. david: steve? >> would that have to do with the deficit he inherited? >> steve, go ahead. >> the only one government cuts money is the military, after it did after world war ii and did again in the 1990's. so yes. but when it comes to domestic programs, good luck. even ronald reagan, all he could do was slow the growth, not cut the spending. david: stpwhill autopsy thaw health plan is part of a giant
plot to make 51% of the u.s. population dependent in some way on the government. once it gets to 51%, it will be impossible for the private sector to ever recapture the government back from the socialists. that's where we're going. >> we're talking about the $1.2 trillion we're going to spend over a decade f. we do nothing, we're going to spend more than $2 trillion, $4 trillion in just a year so. when you talk about what we spend now, you also have to think about what it would have cost us had we done nothing. david: well, that's the argument of the administration. do you buy it? >> no, a lot of the spending increases have come through advancements in technology, so people have spent for better care. that's why, when people have serious illnesses, david, in other countries, they come here. my wife has an uncle who's a doctor in canada, and he's in disbelief that we want to put a model that's similar to canada's model. he shakes his head. he cannot believe it. it will either lead to rationing and/or higher costs. david: i remember the former prime minister of canada sent his mother to the united states for treatment. >> i don't know.
i think that's a red herring. the fact of the matter is -- >> red hering? >> the problem that we have -- mike, we have a private healthcare system in this country, and the costs are totally out of control. so i don't think you can only blame the government for spending beyond its means here. david: the boss wants in. go ahead, steve. >> we don't have real freer enterprise in healthcare because there's a disconnect between the consumer and provider, which is why, when you go to a hospital, clinic or doctor and ask you what the cost is, either you're craze or you don't have insurance. no other part of economic life would you want something and not know the cost. but in healthcare, why do you care? what does it cost? nobody knows. david: so socialism won't save us, but capitalism will. >> true capitalism in medical care. david: forget cost cuts to pay for healthcare, now congress may hike payroll taxes to help cover the bill. you'll hear about that in 10 minutes. hear about the senate's new plan that may give more workers the boot. but first, see this empty land? take a look t. has become
david: is it time to stop government land grabs for good? nearly a decade ago, n new england, government took over this private property you're looking at, including that now-famous pink house. they said it was for the good of the community to rebuild the property, create thousands of jobs, and bring millions in revenue. guess what. today the lot, as you can see,
is vacant. and e-mac says that empty lot proves he will nint domain is an he will nint threat, right? >> yeah, it is an eminent threat. david, what we're seeing is this decision by the supreme court is effectly wreck property rights in this country. this country was basically -- practically founded on property rights. they were doing a tortured reading of the u.s. constitution. also the constitution in all 50 states as well. there's a clause about using seasoned property for public use, not for private use. you're seeing private developers stepping in and getting a tortured reading of the law, so they're convincing local state politicians and, you know, municipalities to do this so they can get property taxes raised so they can enact their own tax and spend pofledse. it's a disaster. david: and e-mac used the word for toured. i think it's an apt word, don't you? >> tortured is when you paint a house pink. but without he will nint domain we'd be missing a few small things like highways, railroads, airports and things like that.
the fact is that our population is increasing, and eminent domain is going to become increasingly important. so i think, yes, you can find some abureks but come on, we need it. david: torture is when you grab somebody's personal property, like that pink house, which was lived in for generations, tear it down, and end up with an empty lot. >> yes, and it was done for corrupt political purposes just to put another development in a local area. this wasn't building a highway, building a school or something that has a real broad public use. when you have those kind of public-private partnerships they become private-partner muggings. politiciansly guess paid off, and they take your property, give it to somebody else. we get a payoff. david: it was all done forsake of a development by pfizer. pfizer says they're pulling out, they're not going n. >> new york city is full of rundown blocks that can't be redeveloped because of the holdout problem. the last owner wants $55 million for a cigar store. the solution is eminent domain. but wait a minute now. when i'm done bulldozing, i'm not going to give it in a
sweetheart deal to politically connected people. that's how the "new york times" got really cheap land for its headquarters. no, no, when i'm done with my bulldozers, i'm going auction it, and the proceeds go to the former owners, david. david: there's nothing more sacred in terms of an object than private property. that's what this country was built on. we want to be so -- >> oh, absolutely. david: we want to be so callous about getting rid tv? >> no, we can't be callous. the bar has to be very high for eminent domain cases. the kelo case should not have qualified as eminent domain, because it wasn't for the greater, greater good, not just for some development. we have to talk about railroads, highways, schools, hospitals, things that the community in the larger community around it can benefit from. david: somebody made a big mistake in new london. well, we are still waiting to get the official word on how much the senate's healthcare reform bill is going to cost, but someone on "cashin' in" says the number doesn't matter, your taxes are going up regardless. how much and what that means for the job market. but first, the one thing that
deutsche bank? >> it's a great k. aim concerned about regulatory action out of washington, though, when it comes to big banks generally. david: so you like apple, which is something everybody's on these days. >> exactly. and that's my point. look, consumers aren't going to spend much this holiday season, but i think the few dollars they do spend, a large portion will go to apple. the company has great products out right now, and they're stealing share. david: bill, you like apple? >> 32 times earnings is an awful lot to pay for a company built on fads. david: oil is not a fad. >> when i think of power, i think the green power coming from exxonmobil f. we switch to natural gas from exxonmobil from coal, we'd be doing a lot more for the atmosphere. >> they're still dependent on oil. demand is weak. i would stay away. david: well, you're going with blackrock, which is at at a 5 -week high. connections are everything in this environment. >> the c.e.o. has been dumping